RAMESH YADAV v. THE STATE OF U.P. THRU. ITS PRIN. SECY. HOME DEPTT. LKO.
BAIL/6223/2025 · 2025-07-08
Manish Kumar
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 148422 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 148422 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:38755 Court No. - 27 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6223 of 2025 Applicant :- Ramesh Yadav Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Raman Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
1. Shri Suresh Kumar Yadav, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant/ informant, which is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for the complainant/ informant and perused the record.
3. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in FIR/ Case Crime No. 198 of 2025, under Sections 80(2) & 85 of BNS, 2023 and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Khairighat, District Bahraich.
4. The brief facts of the case are that an FIR dated 03.05.2025 has been lodged under Sections 80(2) & 85 of BNS, 2023 and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against three named accused persons including the present applicant. Alleging therein that the applicant alongwith other co-accused persons, killed the daughter of the informant for demand of dowry.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the general allegation has been made against all the family
members i.e. the father-in-law (the applicant), the mother-in- law and the husband of the deceased and no specific role has been assigned to them and relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Geeta Mehrotra versus State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others versus State of Bihar and others reported in 2022 Lawsuit (SC) 149.
6. It is further submitted that the applicant is residing separately after the partition between his sons and is living alongwith his younger son and in this regard, the certificate issued by the Pradhan has been enclosed as Annexure No.7 to the paper book. The applicant is in jail since 11.05.2025 and he has no previous criminal history. Learned counsel undertakes on behalf of the present applicant that he shall co-operate in the trial proceedings properly and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail
order.
7. Learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the informant has very fairly submitted that it is not disputed that the applicant is living separately alongwith his younger son and her daughter was living separately alongwith her husband.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, prima facie, it is found that the general allegation has been levelled regarding demand of dowry against the applicant and no specific allegation has been levelled against him; the applicant is living separately is not disputed by the learned counsel for the informant; this court is mindful to the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
rendered in the cases of Geeta Mehrotra (supra) and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam (supra); the present applicant is in jail since 11.05.2025; the present applicant has no previous criminal history and the undertaking that he shall co-operate in the trial proceedings properly and shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail order, without expressing any opinion on merits of the issue, I am of the view that the present applicant may be released on bail in this case.
9. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.
10. Let the applicant (Ramesh Yadav) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his appearance is exempted by the learned trial court.
Order Date :- 8.7.2025 Mohd. Sharif Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench